Bileto and RiscV64

[Balint Reczey]

Hi Lukasz,

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 5:56 PM Lukasz Zemczak
<lukasz.zemczak at canonical.com> wrote:
>
> I think the problem here is the general Bileto architecture, where
> autopkgtests can only be triggered when all arch builds are finished
> and 'diffed'. But if there are no objections, I could maybe change
> Bileto to not care about riscv when performing checks, maybe besides
> the final publishing step (in case someone wants to do Bileto publish
> to the archive).

Yes, please make Bileto consistent with the archive's CI's behaviour.

Cheers,
Balint

PS: Also having an option to automatically start tests when builds are
finished would help in not having to stay up a few more hours just to
press the button.

>
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 16:28, Balint Reczey <balint.reczey at canonical.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 1:44 AM Steve Langasek
> > <steve.langasek at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 06:00:58PM -0300, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > The builders for riscv64 are very slow, and since bileto wails for all
> > > > builds to be ready, each ticket can take dozens of hours. Even if I
> > > > disable that arch in the ppa (via a #webops request), bileto later
> > > > enables it again.
> > >
> > > > Could we do one of the following:
> > > > - disable riscv64 by default on bileto, and make it so it can be
> > > > enabled (and remain enabled) in the ppa if the user so wants it
> > > > - start bileto tests as soon as an arch build is ready, instead of
> > > > waiting for them all to be ready as it is today
> > > > - something else I haven't thought of :)
> >
> > Internally we already had discussions about disabling tests in riscv64
> > builds to speed them up.
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dpkg/+bug/1891686
> >
> > As I understand it got a green light, just no one uploaded the fix yet.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Balint
> >
> > >
> > > I mean, the other alternative is to not use bileto, which is not part of the
> > > normal workflow and results in duplicate tests anyway?
> > >
> > > > I know we want to have packages working on riscv64, but since it's not
> > > > blocking migration in the real archive, it seems unfair that it blocks
> > > > bileto so much.
> > >
> > > It is possible that updating the britney instance used for bileto to match
> > > the current code used for -proposed would address this.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
> > > Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
> > > Ubuntu Developer                                   https://www.debian.org/
> > > slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org
> > > --
> > > ubuntu-devel mailing list
> > > ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> > > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Balint Reczey
> > Ubuntu & Debian Developer
> >
> > --
> > ubuntu-devel mailing list
> > ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
>
>
>
> --
> Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak
>  Foundations Team
>  lukasz.zemczak at canonical.com
>  www.canonical.com



-- 
Balint Reczey
Ubuntu & Debian Developer